1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to an improvement in weather hoods for child carriers and more particularly to an improvement to a weather shield for quick-release attachment to children's car seats, which provides protection from rain, wind, sun, and irritants.
2. Description of Prior Art
It is known that child carriers can be equipped with bonnets, hoods, transparent visors, and like devices. Such known prior devices were single purpose or did not provide the quick access necessary for utilization on a child's car seat, for emergency evacuations.
The applicant has commissioned a patent search for conflicting prior art through the firm of Shlesinger, Arkwright, Garvey & Dinsmore, and cites the following United States patents as having been considered and found not conflicting for the reasons indicated:
______________________________________ Patent No. Date Inventor Class ______________________________________ 2,088,200 7/27/37 J. Glick 280/47.38 ______________________________________
The Glick patent discloses the classic baby carriage, equipped with a collapsible bonnet. The traditional carriage bonnet is heavy and locks into position, so that its design would not be adaptable to children's car seats where the quick-disconnect feature is critical in emergency situations. It is also not anticipatory to the Potts invention as it is not transparent. The Glick patent itself claims only the inclusion of a clock in the traditional carriage and therefore does not anticipate the Potts invention.
______________________________________ Patent No. Date Inventor Class ______________________________________ 2,546,843 3/27/51 N. Zigterman 5/416 ______________________________________
The Zigterman patent discloses a storm and insect shield for use on baby carriages. This device, likewise, is installed so that emergency evacuation of the child is impeded. In addition, it depends upon the underlying structure for support away from the child, while most car seats do not provide sufficient side depth. Perhaps the main drawback to this invention is that it precipitates a claustrophobic area around the child and air circulation around the child is restricted, thus being a health hazard in warm climates. The Potts invention, providing for its own support away from the child, air circulation, and quick disconnection, solves the insufficiencies of the Zigterman patent.
______________________________________ Patent No. Date Inventor Class ______________________________________ 3,873,117 3/25/75 G. Perego 297/184 ______________________________________
The Perego patent discloses a baby stroller equipped with a collapsible parasol and fabric cover for the lower part of the child's body. The Perego patent does not provide a weather guard against wind and/or rain from the front of the stroller and fails to allow quick access to the child in case of the need for emergency evacuation. It is therefore not applicable to children's car seats and does not anticipate the Potts invention.
______________________________________ Patent No. Date Inventor Class ______________________________________ 4,072,345 2/7/78 A. Matsuda 197/184 ______________________________________
The Matsuda patent discloses a removable cover for the rear of a baby stroller, for the purpose of aerating the internal stroller area. Although the Matsuda patent recognizes and attempts to solve the air circulation problem in strollers, it it not applicable to children's car seats which fit against the rear of a passenger seat. The Matsuda patent does not provide the protection from the elements as does the Potts invention.
______________________________________ Patent No. Date Inventor Class ______________________________________ 4,027,915 6/7/77 D. Anderson 297/184 ______________________________________
At first glance, the Anderson patent would appear to disclose a device similar to the Potts invention. However, an analysis of the Anderson patent, its objects and claims reveals that it does not anticipate the improvements of the Potts invention over the prior art. The Anderson patent discloses a clear plastic sun shield attachable to a child's car seat by a pair of adhesive backed mounting brackets. The claims of the Anderson patent apply primarily to the method of attachment, which is not contemplated in the Potts invention.
The Anderson patent discloses a sun visor which is free to rotate on the mounting brackets at the top of the car seat. It does not provide a means for securing the visor against the force of wind or changes in motion of the vehicle, thus it presents a danger to the appendages of a child in the car seat as fingers could be struck by the sides of the visor, were it extended a sufficient distance to protect the torso of the child. The bubble visor, as disclosed in the Anderson patent, does not provide a seal against wind or rain entering the seat from above, nor does it provide a means to direct moisture run-off from the visor, away from the interior of the car seat. All of these deficiencies in the Anderson patent are satisfied by the Potts invention.